Out with the old and in with the new. As we approach the end of the year, wouldn't it be great to click our fingers, say hey presto, and bring aboout a desired change. In this case, that would be a full review of the regulatory process of meat inspection in abattoirs, and for risk-assessment and proportionate law enforcement to finally take its place in the governing of our industry.
Our aim in the new year must be to turn this dream into reality. As the full-cost recovery of charges issue moves into 2011, there is no reason why this should not be the case.The law clearly shows that an abattoir operator(FBO)should be given responsibility for compliance with regulations, so lets keep banging that message home. Lets also keep reminding the outside world where the public health importance of veterinary and meat inspection of fresh meat (which of course is what abattoirs produce) really lies in our everyday lives, i.e. very,very low down.
And topically, to progress the new ground that thankfully seems to be emerging since the debate started, the growing unity of major farming groups and meat processors to confront the Food Standards Agency(FSA) and its totally bureaucratic and self-rewarding intentions.
Our main task must be to galvanise and combine these standard-bearers of industry into a tight and effective umbrella group to tackle the FSA head on. Yes, head on.
The stakes could not be higher.
Toby Baker
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Things are certainly warming up in the full cost recovery debate after Food Standards Agency (FSA) Chief Executive Tim Smith’s interview on Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”.
The Meat Trades Journal (17 December) was full of it. “FSA boss invites industry ire” was the leader title. British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) director Stephen Rossides said “I am surprised and very disappointed that Tim Smith chose to resort to scaremongering by deploying “the meat industry cannot be trusted card”. This is......... deeply insulting to the great majority of businesses that operate.........””.Positively vitriolic stuff from a trade group that likes to think it has a good working relationship with the FSA. This is a major reality check for the BMPA who have always seen themselves as THE people of the meat trade, but who are probably just starting to realise that nobody and nothing is going to derail agency ambitions. Indeed, I have felt for some time that Mr Smith was brought into this role as Chief Executive simply to oversee the move to full cost recovery. My guess is that when and if this target has been met, within a few months he will be gone.
Norman Bagley, policy director at the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS) is never shy of letting off steam. He said “............Whatever happened to food business operators being responsible for food safety and competent authorities (the FSA) being responsible for auditing operators controls? Demonising the industry and scaremongering consumers – is that the new role of the Chief Executive of the FSA?"
Strong words, and it will be interesting to see what action backs up the rhetoric of these industry leaders in the new year, because make no mistake, Mr Smith has unequivocally declared war on the abattoir sector of the meat trade. Lets not kid ourselves that his actions are anything less than that.
What really caught my eye and made me sit up was an open letter to the FSA from Peter Hewson , the former head of veterinary operations at the FSA. Yes, The top man. I have had my share of run-ins with Mr Hewson over the years, but have always found him fair minded but, more importantly, extremely knowledgeable about the realities of meat hygiene in abattoirs. He reached the number one position of veterinary meat hygiene because of that knowledge.
He stated that “during my eight years there (at the FSA) ( I tried) to get outdated and ineffective meat hygiene controls that did not address current safety problems replaced by measures that would be more effective and affordable....” Music to my years, heresy to former agency colleagues who now have to face and hear an eminent previous civil servant speaking the truth!
The biggy for me, though was this. Mr Hewson said “.......giving food business operators (FBO’s) full responsibility for production....was not to be self-regulation as operators controls would be subject to robust audit by the competent authority. It would, however, allow quality control, which is really what meat inspection is.......”
This public utterance from such an important figure as Peter Hewson is absolute dynamite. No bogus claims about protecting public health, no claims of magical powers to make meat safe by meat inspectors and vets, or whatever. Quality control in meat inspection means removal of physical abnormalities, and that the carcases are clean. Yes, it is that simple and straightforward.
Could this be an opportunity for the meat trade. The farmers have been outspokenly against full cost recovery, important trade figures such as Paul Cheale has shown the potential disaster awaiting his business, BMPA and AIMS have woken up to reality, the Scottish wholesalers (SAMW) have been upfront with their anger for months. Unity could at last prevail as increasingly we are starting to do what the FSA fears most – to sing from the same hymn sheet.
I can , at last, see a task force emerging. You could not have a better technical advocate in such a group as Peter Hewson, to deal with crunch questions about meat hygiene while others concentrate on the business aspects. A funded group to get right to the core – media coverage, television and radio interviews, the lot. Perhaps even a publicist. Max Clifford? Why not?
Even after his banana skins from the Radio 4 interview, Mr Smith and his agency colleagues will be expecting things to die down in 2011. It is up to all of us to make sure that this is just the beginning.
A very merry Christmas and happy new year.
Toby Baker
The Meat Trades Journal (17 December) was full of it. “FSA boss invites industry ire” was the leader title. British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) director Stephen Rossides said “I am surprised and very disappointed that Tim Smith chose to resort to scaremongering by deploying “the meat industry cannot be trusted card”. This is......... deeply insulting to the great majority of businesses that operate.........””.Positively vitriolic stuff from a trade group that likes to think it has a good working relationship with the FSA. This is a major reality check for the BMPA who have always seen themselves as THE people of the meat trade, but who are probably just starting to realise that nobody and nothing is going to derail agency ambitions. Indeed, I have felt for some time that Mr Smith was brought into this role as Chief Executive simply to oversee the move to full cost recovery. My guess is that when and if this target has been met, within a few months he will be gone.
Norman Bagley, policy director at the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS) is never shy of letting off steam. He said “............Whatever happened to food business operators being responsible for food safety and competent authorities (the FSA) being responsible for auditing operators controls? Demonising the industry and scaremongering consumers – is that the new role of the Chief Executive of the FSA?"
Strong words, and it will be interesting to see what action backs up the rhetoric of these industry leaders in the new year, because make no mistake, Mr Smith has unequivocally declared war on the abattoir sector of the meat trade. Lets not kid ourselves that his actions are anything less than that.
What really caught my eye and made me sit up was an open letter to the FSA from Peter Hewson , the former head of veterinary operations at the FSA. Yes, The top man. I have had my share of run-ins with Mr Hewson over the years, but have always found him fair minded but, more importantly, extremely knowledgeable about the realities of meat hygiene in abattoirs. He reached the number one position of veterinary meat hygiene because of that knowledge.
He stated that “during my eight years there (at the FSA) ( I tried) to get outdated and ineffective meat hygiene controls that did not address current safety problems replaced by measures that would be more effective and affordable....” Music to my years, heresy to former agency colleagues who now have to face and hear an eminent previous civil servant speaking the truth!
The biggy for me, though was this. Mr Hewson said “.......giving food business operators (FBO’s) full responsibility for production....was not to be self-regulation as operators controls would be subject to robust audit by the competent authority. It would, however, allow quality control, which is really what meat inspection is.......”
This public utterance from such an important figure as Peter Hewson is absolute dynamite. No bogus claims about protecting public health, no claims of magical powers to make meat safe by meat inspectors and vets, or whatever. Quality control in meat inspection means removal of physical abnormalities, and that the carcases are clean. Yes, it is that simple and straightforward.
Could this be an opportunity for the meat trade. The farmers have been outspokenly against full cost recovery, important trade figures such as Paul Cheale has shown the potential disaster awaiting his business, BMPA and AIMS have woken up to reality, the Scottish wholesalers (SAMW) have been upfront with their anger for months. Unity could at last prevail as increasingly we are starting to do what the FSA fears most – to sing from the same hymn sheet.
I can , at last, see a task force emerging. You could not have a better technical advocate in such a group as Peter Hewson, to deal with crunch questions about meat hygiene while others concentrate on the business aspects. A funded group to get right to the core – media coverage, television and radio interviews, the lot. Perhaps even a publicist. Max Clifford? Why not?
Even after his banana skins from the Radio 4 interview, Mr Smith and his agency colleagues will be expecting things to die down in 2011. It is up to all of us to make sure that this is just the beginning.
A very merry Christmas and happy new year.
Toby Baker
Friday, 17 December 2010
The interview on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” programme with Tim Smith (Chief Executive Food Standards Agency – FSA) certainly brought the contentious issue of meat inspection charges and who should pay for them into the public domain.
Mr Smith stepped on a few banana skins when questioned by presenter M/S Winifred Robinson. During his explanation about what happens in these inspections and who pays for them, he stepped right on one when he said “....the FSA is there to protect consumers from risks that might arise during the production of meat.....” It doesn’t, of course, but it’s the same old peg that this agency hangs its hat on - our job now, surely is to let the likes of M/S Robinson know the real facts.
M/S Robinson was not frightened to ask pertinent questions. When Mr Smith revealed that roughly half of the full bill was being paid by the taxpayer, M/S Robinson asked “why then should the meat industry start paying for the whole lot now, because lots and lots of inspection regimes are funded by the taxpayer, aren’t they?”
Banana skin no. 2. “Well, no, not really. I think you’ll find...”M/S Robinson interrupted “Well, a lot of food hygiene is; it’s funded through local authorities, isn’t it?” Mr Smith had to admit this was the case. Ouch!
The discussion moved to costs, bureaucracy, etc, but banana skin no. 3 for Mr Smith came in his reply to the comment about how the meat trade...”if they’re going to meet the full bill they’d like to choose who does it and put the whole thing out to tender.” Now mention the word “consumer” and you can feel the puffing out of agency chests. “Well ,would consumers ....would your listeners want third parties to be doing something as important as this? .......what regulators do is protect consumers (the ultimate banana skin).....and if I’m thinking about my family when I’m eating out......(I’d like to) think it (meat inspection) was(done by) somebody who was being paid for..... to do the job and regulated properly by a Government body....”
Judged in risk assessment terms, Mr Smith would be better advised that when he is out eating his steak in a nice restaurant , he should be much more concerned that the chef knows his or her job in making sure that the food item is cooked adequately enough to kill any nasty little bugs that might give him food poisoning. Because for sure there is no way that any meat inspection regime of the fresh product can ever do that. No, Mr Smith, regulators DO NOT protect consumers with the reality being, in pure health terms relating to fresh meat, inspection IS NOT that important.
And we in the trade have got to have the courage to say so.
Apparently Mr Smith refused to be involved in a debate on air with industry.
I wonder why? Toby Baker.
Toby Baker
Mr Smith stepped on a few banana skins when questioned by presenter M/S Winifred Robinson. During his explanation about what happens in these inspections and who pays for them, he stepped right on one when he said “....the FSA is there to protect consumers from risks that might arise during the production of meat.....” It doesn’t, of course, but it’s the same old peg that this agency hangs its hat on - our job now, surely is to let the likes of M/S Robinson know the real facts.
M/S Robinson was not frightened to ask pertinent questions. When Mr Smith revealed that roughly half of the full bill was being paid by the taxpayer, M/S Robinson asked “why then should the meat industry start paying for the whole lot now, because lots and lots of inspection regimes are funded by the taxpayer, aren’t they?”
Banana skin no. 2. “Well, no, not really. I think you’ll find...”M/S Robinson interrupted “Well, a lot of food hygiene is; it’s funded through local authorities, isn’t it?” Mr Smith had to admit this was the case. Ouch!
The discussion moved to costs, bureaucracy, etc, but banana skin no. 3 for Mr Smith came in his reply to the comment about how the meat trade...”if they’re going to meet the full bill they’d like to choose who does it and put the whole thing out to tender.” Now mention the word “consumer” and you can feel the puffing out of agency chests. “Well ,would consumers ....would your listeners want third parties to be doing something as important as this? .......what regulators do is protect consumers (the ultimate banana skin).....and if I’m thinking about my family when I’m eating out......(I’d like to) think it (meat inspection) was(done by) somebody who was being paid for..... to do the job and regulated properly by a Government body....”
Judged in risk assessment terms, Mr Smith would be better advised that when he is out eating his steak in a nice restaurant , he should be much more concerned that the chef knows his or her job in making sure that the food item is cooked adequately enough to kill any nasty little bugs that might give him food poisoning. Because for sure there is no way that any meat inspection regime of the fresh product can ever do that. No, Mr Smith, regulators DO NOT protect consumers with the reality being, in pure health terms relating to fresh meat, inspection IS NOT that important.
And we in the trade have got to have the courage to say so.
Apparently Mr Smith refused to be involved in a debate on air with industry.
I wonder why? Toby Baker.
Toby Baker
Friday, 10 December 2010
Interesting to read this week an article in the Farmers Guardian. Paul Cheale, a director of Cheale Meats, the country's largest cull sow slaughterer outlines that full cost recovery will cost his company an estimated £700K per year, but robustly argues the case for self-regulation that, if enacted, could bring this cost down to somewhere in the region of £200K, stating "there is no reason why inspection should not be on a risk-based system." Good, sound stuff, and indeed, this ought to be industry's logical goal. (It should be remembered that the 2006 EU regulations were intended to update the law through risk assessment and streamlined enforcement. This has not happened because of the unwillingness of entrenched enforcement bodies to give up established powers. In practice the regulations are even more of a burden).
Mr Cheale adds " Nothing enrages the slaughtering industry more than being told to pass costs onto the customer............................and any increase in costs is ultimately born by the producer." I can see where Mr Cheale is coming from, but if I was farmer reading this article, I would also be "enraged" if told that the any cost-increasing buck stops with me.
Mr Cheale added that "it was imperative the farming industry put its full weight behind averting a disaster in waiting." I totally concur, but to bring about a concerted response to the imminent crisis, with hopefully farmers and meat men speaking as one, any solid foundations for such a group will crumble if the debate revolves around the money.
Mr Cheale touched on risk assessment and I believe it is absolutely essential that any group, task force, or whatever, needs to put some meat -on-the-bones relating to this topic. We need to set out our stall to show that a scientific risk assessment of the full meat production and distribution chain shows that abattoirs are not all that important in terms of preventing food poisoning. There is a low risk of pathogenic bacteria in the animal herd and these can neither be identified nor eliminated during abattoir processes.
We need to win the scientific and technical battle. We have to have the nerve to dispute health regulations for what they are, and to go out to the British public and expose the waste and hypocrisy behind the current set up, to remove our tarnished health reputation.
Win this arguement, and there should be no reason why financial implications for all concerned shouldn't fall into place, but we would have to be prepared for a battle royal from powerful officials with arbitrary powers and secure careers, acting as self-righteous defenders of public health.
To win, we have to set out the battle grounds.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Mr Cheale adds " Nothing enrages the slaughtering industry more than being told to pass costs onto the customer............................and any increase in costs is ultimately born by the producer." I can see where Mr Cheale is coming from, but if I was farmer reading this article, I would also be "enraged" if told that the any cost-increasing buck stops with me.
Mr Cheale added that "it was imperative the farming industry put its full weight behind averting a disaster in waiting." I totally concur, but to bring about a concerted response to the imminent crisis, with hopefully farmers and meat men speaking as one, any solid foundations for such a group will crumble if the debate revolves around the money.
Mr Cheale touched on risk assessment and I believe it is absolutely essential that any group, task force, or whatever, needs to put some meat -on-the-bones relating to this topic. We need to set out our stall to show that a scientific risk assessment of the full meat production and distribution chain shows that abattoirs are not all that important in terms of preventing food poisoning. There is a low risk of pathogenic bacteria in the animal herd and these can neither be identified nor eliminated during abattoir processes.
We need to win the scientific and technical battle. We have to have the nerve to dispute health regulations for what they are, and to go out to the British public and expose the waste and hypocrisy behind the current set up, to remove our tarnished health reputation.
Win this arguement, and there should be no reason why financial implications for all concerned shouldn't fall into place, but we would have to be prepared for a battle royal from powerful officials with arbitrary powers and secure careers, acting as self-righteous defenders of public health.
To win, we have to set out the battle grounds.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Another week into the full cost recovery debate and a glance on-line to the Meat Trades Journal (MTJ) reveals a united front in opposition to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) proposals. "The British Meat Processors(BMPA), the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS), the National Farmers Union(NFU), NFU Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers(SAMW) have all spoken out against the plans.........".
Very encouraging and an absolute must if the FSA is to be brought to heel. Very many futures rest on the outcome of these proposals, so lets hope a British bulldog, backs-to-the -wall spirit can emerge and indeed grow from our perilous position.
The question now, is, how to turn this unity into something more tangible, more organised, more coherent? The FSA has a policy of "divide and rule", one that has served it and its predecessors exceedly well over the years. This would be new ground for us to cover, no time for egos (that includes ALL of us), just a joined-up effort to get the job done. I hope that the above-mentioned organisations can bring this about, meet, and get a visible and united task force up and running. I offer my help as an individual, but what is more important is that all the aforementioned associations work as one team and not in isolation.
Toby Baker
Very encouraging and an absolute must if the FSA is to be brought to heel. Very many futures rest on the outcome of these proposals, so lets hope a British bulldog, backs-to-the -wall spirit can emerge and indeed grow from our perilous position.
The question now, is, how to turn this unity into something more tangible, more organised, more coherent? The FSA has a policy of "divide and rule", one that has served it and its predecessors exceedly well over the years. This would be new ground for us to cover, no time for egos (that includes ALL of us), just a joined-up effort to get the job done. I hope that the above-mentioned organisations can bring this about, meet, and get a visible and united task force up and running. I offer my help as an individual, but what is more important is that all the aforementioned associations work as one team and not in isolation.
Toby Baker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)